Hyatt owns more of their hotels than the others, but the majority of their properties are managed or franchised

Starwood's problem was that they lagged in developing limited service properties during the lodging boom, and they had a consistent service problem with Sheraton, their main full service brand. This caused their development pipeline to dry up, and many people, including myself, avoided Sheratons whenever possible. I stayed at one after United put me up for a flight there, and I was underwhelmed by the poor quality breakfast buffet and the green oxidation present in the bathroom knob. The front desk agent refused to give me a breakfast coupon unless I signed up with the SPG program. I was taken back by how argumentative he was. The idea that Marriott can get away with providing the bare minimum service is not something management is going to want to test out in the next recession. When you tick off enough customers that they stop staying at your hotels, it will be too late by the time that information shows up in Marriott's 10K and 10Q filings with the SEC. Bill Marriott's father, John Marriott, once said take care of your employees and they will take care of your customers. No one is going to pay a premium to stay at a Marriott if it is going to be run solely for the benefit of the developers. If you do not understand that, you have little understanding of how a lack of consistent good service will lead to a drop in customer loyalty. Marriott's stance is similar to United Airlines view under Smisek when his leaders said we have the best route structure and do not need overentitled elite customers. The current leadership at United is actively trying to compete with Delta, and they are not as complacent as Smisek was.

Marriott stopped being heavy asset after they ran into trouble with the recession in 1990 and 1991. They took on a lot of debt to rapidly expand in the 1980s, and they needed an emergency loan to stay afloat. They asked Coca Cola for a special loan, and Coca Cola turned them down. Pepsi saw an opportunity, and they loaned Marriott the money and got their soft drink contract.

Starwood's poor performance was because a lot of people who valued good service over only a better rewards program chose to stay at other chains like Hyatt and Marriott. If Marriott thinks they can downgrade their service and live off of the goodwill from earlier years when Marriott had excellent service, they are going to end up having REVPAR numbers closer to the old SPG than the old Marriott. There are enough travelers who will move their stays, and enough of them control corporate and large personal group travel. I have heard many guests at Marriott hotels say they were loyal because Marriott had provided consistently excellent service. None of them said it was because Marriott had more locations than any other hotel chain. Marriott's current management is going to risk that loyalty in their quest for more profit. I remember when an old Holiday Inn reflagged as a Marriott hotel around 2007 in the DC Metro area. The owner did it to increase revenue, and there were some initial pains since the hotel management and employees were not used to the higher standard service requirements for a Marriott hotel.

Every company will do the exact same thing is the biggest lie ever told in any industry. Marriott's management decision to race to the bottom with Hilton is going to eventually backfire because people are not as forgetful and stupid as they think. Whenever decisions are made with a bean counter mentality, you usually end up alienating your customers. In the Southern areas of the United States, Lance Crackers is very popular. They make a peanut butter cracker sandwich that sells well, and it has loyal fans who have had parents and grandparents who were just as loyal. Keebler makes a competitive product, and if you look at the outside box, it looks exactly the same since it has the same number of individually wrapped cracker sandwich containers, and they weigh the same amount. But it becomes apparent when you eat the Keebler version that it is the one designed by bean counters who tried to save money. The Lance peanut butter cracker sandwiches always have some of the peanut butter on the wrappers of the individual containers. This is because they are generous with their peanut butter and some of it ends up going off the cracker. Keebler decided to cut the amount of peanut butter in their competitive product, and it is easily noticeable when you eat it. If Marriott is going to go approach the hotel business the way Keebler makes their peanut butter cracker sandwiches, they are going to destroy their brand value. It won't happen overnight, which is how companies get in trouble when they decide to cut corners.

I don�t disagree with most of what you said.

However, let me just ask you this.

In Miami, Boston, and San Francisco, which other large chain are you going with? A random unbound collection? A conference center Grand Hyatt? A Hyatt Regency? Compared to the dozen top tier hotels Marriott has in south Florida, the St. Regis SF, the Ritz Boston, etc�. Marriott just utterly dominates so many US markets and it�s really not close.

Also, I think people on this forum are skewed toward loyalty program treatment. Do Hilton hotels treat normal guests worse than Hyatt hotels do? IME, no. For the vast majority of consumers, this does not matter. I think Hilton treats elites the worst and tbh I am most bullish on that company.

Elimination of daily housekeeping would suck. If they do that, huge L for Marriott for FS properties and Hyatt becomes the indisputable winner for that segment. I don�t want to beg the front desk to send up housekeeping�

Highlighting this section of your comment. While individual properties are singled out for their design, location, service levels or whatever factors that sway a customer into choosing them, many of us on this forum ABSOLUTELY care about the way we are treated by these hospitality companies via their respective loyalty programs.

Loyalty goes both ways: we all spend time and money at properties within a family of brands owned by a single company based on a choice we make to devote fostering a relationship with individual companies and properties in the hopes that we can grow within the company and in turn be rewarded for our time and money. Starwood was tiny and they had to work harder to lure you, but for myself and many others, they worked for our affection and got it. The company was customer-centric and failed to grow for a variety of reasons you eloquently described above, but their customer service was a key point that drew people into becoming fiercely devoted to their loyalty program, to the point that people would seek their properties out no matter where they were. THAT was an emotional connection to a product.

Illustrative point: I was visiting Ljubljana, Slovenia one summer and the only SPG property there was the Four Points Ljubljana Mons, located on a highway outside the city center. Instead of staying at the brand new, far more upscale and beautiful InterContinental in the middle of the city, I stayed at the older Four Points. I was given their best suite in the house, a handwritten card and welcome amenity of locally-made dark chocolates and a full bottle of Slovenian red wine.

I was lucky to have had a 100 percent suite upgrade success rate under SPG. Back when the Ambassador service had bespoke Ambassadors, I initially had one who was a legacy Marriott employee and while she was nice, she couldn't be pushed to be proactive, timely or give a crap when I would write in with requests. I still remember how she once responded to a pre-stay request I made that was ignored and I had completed the stay, and she wrote an email justifying her delay by saying she had x hundred Ambassador guests to deal with. When I requested a switch, I was given an Ambassador from the legacy SPG side who was INFINITELY better, always personalized my stays and took the time to build a more genuine and personal connection with me, which was something I enormously appreciated.

Then Marriott killed the bespoke Ambassador service "in the name of COVID", alienating its highest-paying subset of loyalty program customers and removing an experience that many of them knew was watered down from the original SPG product, but soldiered on with anyway despite its wild inconsistencies.

And now this absolute garbage about Capuano wanting us to have an emotional attachment to Marriott's current program, one that he is now on the record with for saying it's less rewarding to end-receivers as us, that owners carry more weight over us, and that having more SpringHills and Fairfields and Courtyards available to us should be an attractive trade-off for a neutered program and loyalty experience because we're too stupid and our memories too short. UNBELIEVABLE. Many of us do have an emotional attachment to Marriott, only it's more visceral than anything else and in the sense that it makes one want to run like Hell to the bathroom.

It's hard for me to wish Marriott well. Hilton, for that matter, although my experiences with them have been relatively good so far. I hope all this myopia results in them tarnishing their reputation and triggers a walkout of guests that in turn affect their hotels' performances, which triggers owners to walk out on Marriott. I look very forward to seeing how this direction works out for them... from a Hyatt, IHG, Hilton or any other property that isn't one of their flags.

khabah

I understand. Loyalty is rightfully important for people here because most of the posters here have credible claims to it. However, I just don't think the differences across loyalty programs matter for most people, even many legit road warrior management consultants. I would love for every loyalty program to become much better. Pragmatically, I don't think there is a strong incentive there for them to improve. And my observation reading the airline/hotel forums is that as time goes on, these programs all only get worse and seldom get better.

Will a weaker Marriott Bonvoy/Hilton Honors/Whatever actually lead to meaningfully weaker marketing machines for these huge hotel companies? Only time will tell but, if I were a betting man, I would bet "no".

1) A hotel could get guests to book direct by offering something for booking direct, such as a free breakfast.

2) If a program is not going to have useful benefits or is not going to enforce its benefit policies on behalf of customers, why would the customer favor a hotel that's a member of the program?

I realize it's in a very different part of the market, but look at Mandarin Oriental Fans. They don't give status or points, but if you book direct you can choose things such as breakfast or an upgrade subject to availability.

From a customer's point of view, does it matter if the property is owned or franchised/managed? I'd think what the customer gets would be more important.

How important are corporate contracts? I'd think that's where scale would have the biggest effect.

I think Marriott does offer perks for booking direct: an 8%-15% rebate of your rate in points! In terms of perks offered to elites, I genuinely think the majority of normal people (even road warriors) are satisfied with any elite program and just don�t care about the differences. Just my 2 cents.

Fans of Mandarin Oriental is weird tbh. Almost always better to book through a travel agent. I think the most interesting loyalty program is Four Seasons Elite. They don�t offer any concrete perks other than a promised elevated experience. Yet, FS has some of the most die hard fans out of any hotel. The solution? Just delivering consistently excellent hotels. IMO for me, I completely agree that Hyatt Globalist is better than any status Marriott has (and perhaps better than even what SPG offered). However, I will not stay at a worse hotel in SF, South Florida, Boston, etc just for status.

I think my perspective on loyalty is different than most ppl here because I refuse to be loyal unless it is absolutely convenient for me. For people like SPN Lifer that seriously committed to Marriott over their lifetimes and got screwed over, I understand why the experience is so frustrating.

My hotel picking progress weighs these things in descending order:

1) Value (which includes point rebates, confirmed suite upgrades through Hyatt or Virtuoso/whatever, stay 3 pay 2, etc)
2) Absolute quality (location, service quality, etc)
3) Loyalty programs status

I think for many ppl, the value in a hotel is heavily impacted by loyalty programs. But I just don�t see the tangible value other than suite upgrades and late check out. If a hotel is only treating me well bc of my hotel status, it�s probably not a great hotel to begin with.

IME money talks and hotels treat paying customers the best. The best service experience I have ever had was when my parents booked a specialty suite at the st Regis NY. Status didn�t matter (not even sure what status they had back then).

Agree with what ppl said previously about loyalty being a two way street. I�ll say here what I said in the United 1K thread

Loyalty is for suckers. These companies aren�t loyal to us. Why should we be loyal to them?

Hyatt is great now. SPG was great too. One day, Hyatt will become bad and there will probably be a new darling program.

I don�t think Marriott is great or even anything special. I just think we are overestimating how much these program issues matter for the majority of people. I won�t be loyal to Marriott but I will definitely will NOT avoid their hotels when they are the best option (for me, this is often) just because I am not happy with Bonvoy.

A points rebate assumes points are valuable. I would think normal people and road warriors would notice things like the free breakfast benefit becoming a small credit or that housekeeping is no longer coming by.

For MO it's certainly better to book through a Virtuoso or the like travel agent, who can provide more benefits than Fans.

The solution of delivering consistently excellent hotels does not appear to appeal to owners.

I tend to pick hotels on quality provided the price is one I consider sane. I've given up on loyalty programs. I'll usually book through Virtuoso/Stars/Prive unless it would end up costing more.

I recently picked a Westin because it had the location, room size and view I wanted and a nearby MO, with slightly better location and probably service, wanted significantly more for a similar room

Are there hotels that won't give you late check out (or early check in) if it's available, whether or not it's an official benefit?

Do most people even join loyalty programs? If they do join, do they have any idea about the benefits?

Hotel owners are paying a lot for the brand name. If the brand does not promise any particular level of quality or benefits, what good is it?

I continue to wonder about the role of corporate contracts in all of this.

Hotel owners are paying for distribution, above all else. Corporate contracts, group meeting sales, and loyalty bookings all play a role. But an individual hotel needs to source customers somewhere - they will either pay Marriott/Hilton/Hyatt or Expedia/Booking, and Booking charges more

Brands have to bring in customers, where loyalty programs and consistently of service theoretically play a role. But obviously end customers will value things differently

Marriott / Hilton claim 60% or more of people staying at their hotels provide a loyalty number, so it is a majority. The programs seem to suggest that points are the main motive and that �benefits� are less important

These things would be awful if they happened to Marriott. They haven�t yet (though I suspect/fear news is coming) so I�ll save any discussion on that for when it actually happens. Already happened to Hilton though. I can�t understand how people would consider Hilton over Marriott. I just don�t know what the value proposition is other than the insanely OP Hilton Aspire for people with multiple players.

Also, Marriott points are valuable to me. They have been devalued (and the worst devaluations are definitely ahead of us) but I have been able to save a lot through them.

ie: 10 nights at the St. Regis Miami Bal Harbour this year (including over thanksgiving), 5 nights at St. Regis Maldives (during Christmas!!!), 5 nights Le Meridien Maldives, etc

Really grateful being able to take those trips, especially bc the St. Regis Bal Harbour prices are so crazy rn!

But yeah, ultimately I agree there is no point being loyal to Marriott. SNAs are garbage and suite upgrades seem to occur independently of status IME. I just disagree with the idea that Marriott is trash that needs to be avoided (might be getting a few threads mixed up, typing on phone rn). There�s too many places in their country where Marriott is the best points hotel�

And I care about earning points rebates a lot. Hyatt points are easier to come by for business owners but� Marriott just has SO many more appealing hotels for me to redeem at. Like honestly, what Hyatt hotels excite you in the continental USA rn? What about exciting Marriott hotels? At this rate, I�ll never burn UR more quickly than I earn bc there�s just not enough compelling options for redemptions.

Long term? They don't have a retention department and are not concerned with customer acquisition costs.

SLH?

Capuano is ROFLOL!!!

Small Luxury Hotels

Here's a TPG article on the partnership https://thepointsguy.com/guide/slh-hyatt-benefits/

TL;DR: higher rates to book through Hyatt, only a portion of the SLH portfolio is open, limited perks (2pm available check out, limited upgrades, free breakfast), perks are the same for all Hyatt status tiers, etc

IME, Monday-Thursday that number is much higher than 60% where as on weekends it's considerably lower. The average guest just wants the points to spend with Amazon or to have enough for a free night or two when possible. Benefits are not something that the overwhelming bulk of the travelling public care about and/or are educated in.